Search for: "State v. Short Bull"
Results 201 - 220
of 314
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Apr 2012, 11:51 pm
This concept was established by the CJEU back in the seventies, in the case Deutsche Grammophon v. [read post]
26 Mar 2012, 4:41 pm
United States v. [read post]
22 Mar 2012, 9:04 pm
Dodge v. [read post]
21 Mar 2012, 5:38 pm
” United States v. [read post]
20 Mar 2012, 3:46 pm
CAAF heard oral argument last week in the Article 62 appeal case of United States v. [read post]
19 Mar 2012, 4:00 am
” In short, the Appointments Clause gives the President the exclusive power to appoint all those who exercise significant authority under US law. [read post]
18 Mar 2012, 12:53 pm
., Brown Shoe v. [read post]
15 Mar 2012, 7:24 pm
” United States v. [read post]
15 Mar 2012, 8:35 am
" In short, the Panel determined, the parties cannot cure the problem caused by Judge Rakoff's decision. [read post]
5 Mar 2012, 4:00 am
Mossoff stops short of endorsing Locke’s justification of intellectual property. [read post]
1 Mar 2012, 9:26 pm
It might seem that all is not lost when the Supreme Court proclaims in Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh v State of AP and Ors that the decision in Mirzapur did not mean that the slaughter of cattle by itself is unconstitutional. [read post]
1 Mar 2012, 1:08 pm
In short, the directive aims at stimulating the creation of databases. [read post]
26 Feb 2012, 8:56 pm
• The new Regulation 5(9) is related to direct v. indirect acquisitions and mergers/amalgamations. [read post]
24 Feb 2012, 12:15 pm
At an in Chambers hearing on February 16, 2012, Judge James Selna issued an Order in U.S. v. [read post]
13 Feb 2012, 4:11 pm
” Huber v. [read post]
6 Feb 2012, 2:22 am
R. v. [read post]
30 Jan 2012, 5:23 pm
However, given the current state of the case law, there seems to be a reasonable case for clarification in this area. [read post]
19 Jan 2012, 6:00 am
CAAF will hear oral argument in a second case on Tuesday, January 24: United States v. [read post]
14 Jan 2012, 3:30 pm
Elsegood v. [read post]
5 Jan 2012, 10:16 am
This means, in short, that a member state is not at liberty to introduce welfare measures that hinder the free movement of livestock across EU borders, or, as the CJEU says in terms: numerical standards relating to the minimum internal height of compartments, such as those laid down by [the Danish legislation], must be proportionate to the objective of protecting animals during transport and must not go beyond what is necessary to achieve it. [read post]
